RAM PHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Not very often, the police official is caught red handed while taking bribe. Rarely, however they are convicted for the offences, so serious in nature. In most of the cases, the police officials continue to remain on the post and, thus, are able to influence or pressurise the witnesses to resile to get clean chit. Should such acquittals weigh overwhelmingly on the decision in the departmental proceedings? This question arising in this case is for consideration in the background of following facts:

(2.) As per allegations made, the Petitioner, while working as Investigating Officer during his stay at Police Post Kherki Daula under Police Station Sadar Gurgaon, had demanded bribe from one Mehar Chand. Said Mehar Chand had made an application to Inspector, S.V.B., Gurgaon, alleging that the Petitioner was demanding bribe of Rs. 2,000/- from him. Though the Petitioner has not elaborated the background in this regard but same is found reflected in the reply and in the annexures with the petition.

(3.) One girl, Rajasthani labourer, staying with her mother and working in Village Barah, had allegedly eloped. The mother had reported the matter to police, alleging involvement of one Bittu, a Rajasthani labourer. The village Panchayat had enquired the matter and found the allegation of the woman to be false and baseless. Village Panchayat, thus, authorised Mehar Chand son of Ram Charan to go and inform the police that said Bittu was not involved in the incident. When Mehar Chand approached the Petitioner on 18.10.2006 to give this information, the Petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 2000/- as a bribe. The matter was reported to the State Vigilance Bureau and the Petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe. A case FIR No. 65 dated 18.11.2006, under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered at Police Station S.V.B., Gurgaon. For the same misconduct, the Superintendent of Police initiated departmental enquiry against the Petitioner for the abovesaid lapse. The enquiry was entrusted to Assistant Commissioner of Police. The Enquiry Officer had prepared the summary of allegations and supplied the list of witnesses and the documents to the Petitioner, The Enquiry Officer had afforded reasonable opportunities to the Petitioner while holding enquiry and while recording the statement of five prosecution witnesses. The Petitioner had produced two witnesses in his defence. The Petitioner was found guilty of the allegation made against him but the action was kept pended due to pendency of the criminal case.